Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

John Atkinson wrote:

> >A "motorized tank platoon" ? Now I've heard everything.Well, if
adding
> >HumVees to a leg unit makes them motorized then I suppose using them
in
> >an armor role makes the tank platoon motorized too.
>
>That's the intention.
>
>Short version:
>
>Tanks are not as useful in most counter-insurgency missions.  But you
>want armored units there because if you need tanks, you need them
>very, very, badly.  See:  Battle of the Black Sea Marketplace,
>Mogadishu AKA Day of the Rangers.
>
>Further, tankers in this role can hold down a sector, perhaps not as
>well as infantry but tolerably well.  Effectively, they are dual-armed
>cavalry, light or heavy as the situation requires it.

Judging from the reports published in Armor and various comments made by

tankers around the 'net, the "motorized tank platoons" don't usually
have 
both tanks *and* M1114s; instead they  seem to have *replaced* their
tanks 
with M1114s - which means that they're not "light or heavy as the
situation 
requires it", but light only. Considering that the convoy that so 
completely failed to reach the Rangers in Mogadishu consisted of
HumVees, 
this "light only" concept seems a bit... risky.

'Course, the HumVees are a lot more likely to actually start when
they're 
needed - they're a lot easier to maintain than the Abramses.... and as
long 
as they do the job, fine :-/

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l